The Canteen/Die Feldflasche, Part 3

As previously discussed in a prior post, the canteen or Feldflasche was not issued to the cavalry even though it had been standard issue for the rest of the German Army prior to 1914, something that is seemingly inexplicable (as of yet). It was not until September 14, 1914 that the issue of canteens to the cavalry was made. Initially, a modified version of the the standard 1907 pattern canteen with a shoulder strap was issued. This was similar to what was issued to the field artillery. Later on, the cavalry was issued with the same model issued to all other branches of the German Army.

Below is a picture of the artillery canteen which was basically a 1907 pattern infantry canteen with a harness and shoulder sling:

Illustration 8 and 9 depict the 1907 and 1915 artillery canteens.

Finally, below are pictures of the 1915 version of the artillery canteen. Like the infantry version, materials shortages mandated a change in June 1915 with the introduction of the 1915 pattern, which was made from steel that was tin plated on both sides. A cork stopper was used rather than a machined screw-top. What is especially interesting about the examples below is the use of an ersatz sling.

The 1915 pattern, rear view.

The 1915 pattern, front view.

The 1915 pattern, close-up of bottom attachment button.

Helmets and Things: The truth about the camouflaged helmets of the German Army

Camouflage helmets always seem to attract interest. Here's a good over view about the whole thing, courtesy of Jacob Caputo:

Helmets and Things: The truth about the camouflaged helmets of the Gre...: If there is one aspect that draws contention about the history of Great War helmets it is probably the use of hand painted camouflage...

Helmets and Things: A Short History of the German Steel Helmet

For a good "once over" history of German helmets during the First World War, check out Jacob Caputo/Alexander and Sons blog:

Helmets and Things: A Short History of the German Steel Helmet of the ...: In the early months of 1916 the surviving members of a small squad of German soldier huddled in the sordid recesses of a French shell h...

The M18 Helmet- Note, this was not a "Cavalry" helmet!

More on the Rucksack

Here are some illustrations depicting the rucksack in use:

Packing List for the Rucksack- This is from the WWII era but close enough.

Landwehrmanner with rucksack- The mess kit was strapped to the front of the rucksack while the Zeltbahn and maybe a blanket are secured under the top flap.

A nice close up from the rear. Most likely, he's got a greatcoat strapped along the outside in a horseshoe, once again secured by the top flap.

One more view from the year showing how the equipment was arranged on the rucksack.

The Rucksack

The rucksack was a fairly obscure item of equipment in the German Army and there is not a lot of documentation available. Before the war, rucksacks were issued only to cyclist and machine gun troops. With the massive expansion of the army in 1914-15, there was a need to equipment mass numbers of troops with something for them to carry their kit. Normally, this would have been the Tornister which was the issue knapsack but with bottlenecks in production, alternatives were sought and the rucksack was one of them. Intially, rucksacks were bought on the open market so there was a degree of variation. Also, non-infantry troops that were in possession of Tornisters were ordered to turn them in and instead were issued rucksacks.

For the cavalry, prior to the outbreak of the war they were not issued any sort of knapsack or rucksack; it was supposed that whatever kit they had would either be lashed down to the saddle, placed in the pommel bags, or incoporated into the blanket roll. However, with the end of the initial mobile phase by late 1914, cavalry was increasingly being used in a dismounted role and there needed to be some what for the cavalry soldat to keep his necessary kit close at hand to they were also issued rucksacks, at least at first.

 

Here's a little information from Jürgen Kraus (please excuse my poor translation):

Apart from rucksack-like models for machine gun troops and cyclists, no rucksacks were provided in the German Army before the war. In the first months of the war, bottlenecks were encountered in equipping the newly-established formations with knapsacks that rucksacks were alternatively obtained on a large scale for equipping reserve troops- Landwehr and Landsturm. Rucksacks were readily available commercially and they were also faster to produce than knapsacks. Already on August 27, 1914 the Bavarian Army administration had ordered 20,000 rucksacks to be delivered by the end of September. 

For the newly established snowshoe and mountain troops, the rucksack was an integral part of their equipment. Even for those troops in the field who had no knapsack, rucksacks were sometimes issued for carrying their equipment. So on November 25, 1914, the Bavarian War Ministry ordered the transfer of 5,000 rucksacks from the Bavarian Cavalry Division; since March 8, 1915, their replacement troops were equipped with Tornisters. At the beginning of 1915 there was still a great need for knapsacks.   

In order to at least fully equip the infantry, on January 18, 1915 the Prussian War Ministry ordered that Tornisters issued to those troops (i.e. non-infantry), were ordered to be removed and replaced with rucksacks; this applied to the machine gun companies, field artillery, telegraph, air service and train units. In addition, for the time being this would apply to all units- except for the infantry equipped with rucksacks from the outset- in order to keep the Tornisters for the infantry. This action was followed by Bavaria on February 1, 1915, Saxony on January 27, 1915 and by Württemberg on January 24, 1915. 

Initially, the military administration bought all available civilan rucksacks styles to meet the sudden demand. Later, delivery contracts were awarded by simplifying the patterns, although they could vary depending on the corps area clothing office. In Bavaria, where the procurement of the war clothing was carried out, a relatively large rucksack made of soft waterproof canvas with outside pockets for ammunition and other items was developed. Under the flap there was a special bag for the messkit, while inside the rucksack, five bags were installed. This rucksack pattern was judged to be too large and the material it was made out of was too thin.

Below are some views of the 1915 pattern rucksack:

 

The 1915 Pattern

 

And now the 1918 pattern:

The 1918 Pattern

In regard to the above two patterns, Kraus states:

There are two preserved originals provide a picture of the provisional backpacks that the Prussian Military authorities procured. The 1915 model, consists of reed green cotton fabric of about 57 x 57 cm in size and carries on the back of a 23 cm high and 37 cm wide, patch pocket. At the strap are quilted cotton short Schnallstücke (patches?) made of leather are sewn on. The other model (1918) is characterized by a military marking of Uhlan Regiment Nr. 20 and is from 1918. The 1918 large rucksack was approximately 43 x 52 cm and also made of reed-green cotton fabric, with elaborate trimmings and straps in brown leather; the flap is made entirely of brown leather. The leather straps match those of the Tornister. The different patterns or rucksacks that existed early in the war were consolidated by order of the Prussian War Ministry on June 3, 1916 by release of a standard pattern for rucksacks.  

After this, the rucksack was made of gray waterproof cotton fabric, just like the Tornister, and the carrying bag was approximately 58 cm wide and 48 cm high with an approximately 10 cm wide floor area. It had inside two pockets of gray or brown fabric with a falling over-flap: a larger 40 x 35 cm in size at the back and a smaller 30 x 20 cm in size at the front. (It's a little ambiguous here) 

At the top, reinforced by a 5 cm wide strip of canvas edge, a round cord of hemp ran through 16 eyelets with which one zuschnurte (secured?) the backpack. For closure was a 36 x 32 cm large, rimmed with a leather protective cover (flap), which was sewn to the back of the bag underneath the eyelets and inside partially reinforced with canvas. It was fitted with two 22 cm long leather straps and two 20 cm below the upper edge backpack roller buckles closed. On the cap were four leather straps to unbuckle the messkit. Sideways was on the front, about 27 cm below the upper edge, depending on a loop for belt buckles of the jacket. A strong, 4 x 22 cm Leather web obliquely recognized straps were - as for the knapsack - riveted.

The above provides an interesting overview and it's clear that the rucksack was viewed as mostly an iterim measure although it was being more and more being seriously considered for general issue as was the case in the Austro-Hungarian Army.

 

For reenactment purposes, the only reproduction German rucksack on the market (or was on the market) is something that sort of looks like a cross between the 1915 and 1918 models and given the multiplicity of designs in use in 1914-16, I can see using a somewhat "non-standard" model. From a utility perspective, adding leather patches through which carrying straps passed, as depicted in the 1918 illustration above, would be useful for securing the Kochgeschir and the Zeltbahn pole and peg case. 

 

It would be nice to see another pattern of reproduction rucksack be developed because as a pratical matter, we need something to carry and contain our personal kits. From experience, I have discovered that while pommel bags modified for ground use makes an interesting visual, they have limit carrying capacity and are awkward to carry and use. In short, a real pain in the rear. Besides, modified pommel bags was only done as an experiment by one cavlry regiment and it was never adopted for widespread army use.

 

No doubt there will be more to follow....

 

Horrido!

 

P.S. I have a scanned pdf version of the pages from the two-volume work by Kraus and I'd be more than happy to share it with anyone seeking to make their own translation. Who knows? I might have gotten it all wrong. :-) 

 

Even the Horses Were In Trenches...

I recently came across this picture- it's kind of interesting in that the horse is also in the trench, or more properly, a sort of a crude bunker. I'm not sure what to make of this but I thought it was interesting.

Chevauleger Wedding Picture

Here's an interesting picture - A wedding portrait. The interesting thing is that the Schwolie in the picture is also wearing another badge, possibly that of the 11 Bavarian Infantry Division. Unlike the Austrians, the German Army was never big on having distinct badges for units and efforts were made to suppress this- the only big exception with the Mountain and Jaeger troops. Finally, the Schwolie is wearing his sword belt and you can see the sword hanger- this suggests that this portrait was taken in 1915 before swords were officially withdrawn.

When the 11th Division was created in early 1915, the 1 Eskadron, 2 Chevauleger along with the 2 Eskadron, 7 Chevauleger were assigned as the divisional cavalry/reconnaissance elements. Later, only the 2 Eskadron, 7 Chevauleger remained.

The 11th Bavarian Infantry Division saw action both on the Western and Eastern Fronts and among its achievements was helping to bring the Brusiliov Offensive to a halt in 1916. Previously in 1915, the 11th had fought in the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive.

Portrait- Trooper & Horse, Dragoon Regiment No. 6

Here's an interesting cavalry picture of a soldat of Dragoon Regiment No. 6 at the  outbreak of the war. The one flower he has pinned on his tunic plus the fact that the regimental number is on his picklehaube cover points towards 1914.

Sicherungs-Regiment 195: Beyond the Blank Fire: A realistic approach to rec...

This is an especially thought-provoking post and while the focus is on a WWII unit, it still applies to what we're doing. All too much, it seems that things have become all about the boom and bang and way too many people are getting into reenacting just to burn powder and bust caps with real regard for that it's really all about. Personally, if I went for an entire weekend without shooting a single blank, that would be fine with me. I much prefer the living history opportunities.

Sicherungs-Regiment 195: Beyond the Blank Fire: A realistic approach to rec...:      WWII reenacting has traditionally centered on public displays, which are ostensibly for educational purposes, and priv...

The 2 Chevauleger Regimental Standard

Below is a picture of the official standard of the 2 Chevauleger:

The Cavalry Lives On at Boxberg...

The spirit of the Kaiserzeit Era cavalry still lives on today at Boxberg- for the past three years, the Deutsche Kavallerieverband e.V. has sponsored a cavalry competition at Boxberg drawing competitors from as far away as the United States. The competition consists of a series of individual and group events that test one's ability to function as cavalry. From the looks of the tests, they appear to be pretty rigorous and would definitely be a challenge to almost any rider. People represent a particular cavalry regiment and as you can see form the pictures below, it can be quite a mixed bag.

As you can see here, there's a mix of uniforms ranging from Prussian Dragoons, Kuirassiers, and Uhlans to Bavarian Uhlans. Unfortunately, there are no Chevaulegers.

Another group shot. There are definitely some modern modifications going on with the saddles and tack but oh well....

At the Races....

As a corollary to cavalry in Germany, prior to the First World War, there an extensive equine industry existed in Germany. While motor vehicles were coming into use, horsepower still made up a large percentage of Germany's transportation needs in the civilian sector. Horses were also viewed by the Germany government as a strategic resource and efforts were made to promote horse breeding as a means of building and maintaining numbers of horses that could be drawn upon in case of war. This even went as far as the German government registering privately-owned horses for use in wartime (sort of a "horse reserve"). Additionally, equestrian sports were encourage, often in cooperation with the military, and that included horse racing.

There were a number of horse racing tracks in Germany that drew large crowds. Many were interested in the horses themselves or were enthusiasts trying to promote horse breeding and the like. Also, there was the gambling that came along with it, much like today. Finally, attending horse races was considered a social event for the upper classes and it was one place that people could see and be seen.

One such track was the Boxberg at Gotha. Founded in 1878,  still exists to this day. Below are some pictures:

Boxberg during the Kaiserzeit

Boxberg Today

Guest Blog Post: Living History

The following is a guest blog posting from Chris Fischer, an individual who has been involved with living history both professionally and for a hobby. Mr. Fischer gives some fascinating insights that bear consideration in regard to historic personages appearing at living history/reenactment events:

Having been involved in Living History most of my life, as a hobby and a profession, and its use as an interpretative ducational tool as a teacher, coupled with an odd hobby and fascination with human behavior and in a relationship over 10 years with a therapist as well as being a teacher and having to attend several hours of class work on child psychology, I have some very different views of these people who dress as REAL historic "celebrities" and will list them. One problem is that these people who dress up as Hitler, Patton, Custer. Lee, Lincoln, etc. do so more often than not for one of two reasons. One is idol worship, some that are fascinated with or respect.

The other reason is simply just a sad cry for attention. "If I dress up as the cool kid from WWII, then all the WW2 people will think I am cool". It RARELY has anything to do with history, interpretation, alternative views, the dark side of the story or anything else. AS teachers we learn alot about negative attention (a key part about Attention Deficit disorder is not necessarily they can't keep attention, but were usually deprived of it too). Going to the Reading Airshow as Captain America is nothing more than an attempt to get yourself in a lot pictures with kids and co-eds. Showing up as Hitler or even Allgemeine SS you already know is going to start controversy, in other words you KNEW you would draw negative attention as soon as you cam e up with the idea to wear that outfit in public. They really don't "teach" much about history, they just stand around and wait for people to come up and ask to hold Patton's Revolver while you strut around with way too much fake bravado!

This leads me to a second topic line. To portray an historical figure is exclusively the realm of theatrics, not interpretation. I once worked at an historic site where we had one historical character portrayed. Why? Because of the reasons I noted above. The general public wanted to meet THE Colonel, have their picture taken, sip tea with him, etc. Depending on who was assigned that duty on what day, you got very different interpretations of the historical figure. Oddly each person regularly slated to portray that person would argue that theirs was the most accurate depiction! Its like the most recent "Lincoln" movie and everyone praising Danial Day Lewis for nailing Lincoln...the problem is all the critics seemed to overlook that Lincoln died 150 years ago, before the advent of motion pictures and even sound recordings. Mr. Lewis was never able to interview the man nor look over his mannerisms in film nor study his speech patterns from recordings...so it becomes very arrogant and presumptuous to say that he "nailed it"...this is my point.

In my personal opinion, I think it is disrespectful to portray "real" people. There is no way the interpretation can be accurate. I don't care how many books your read, original letters, diaries, or films you watch you ultimately were never that [person and never able to truly know and express their inner feelings ans secrets (people back then rarely wrote anything incriminating in letters or diaries). It is a person wanting to take on the "celebrity" status of someone else so that they can be popular or respected. Every movie depiction of our friend Adolf is even a little different. Take it a final step further, I refuse to watch the documentary I saw the other day online about "humanizing" Himmler! Yes he was a family man and the home movies of him playing with a puppy are cute, that does not negate what he did and authorized. Same goes for Adolph. The one time he went to the death camp and watched the gassing threw the windows he was physically ill from it...did his "humane" side take over? No, he cleaned himself up and played "out of sight/out of mind" about it.

More Research, Research, Research

This is a follow-up to my first post in regard to research. I've been doing the living history/reenactment game for going in 30 years and the one thing I've found very irritating is the attitude of "do your research" when attempting to find out about a particular aspect of the impression I am attempting to create. Yes, I can perfectly understand that sentiment and I share it myself- why should I just spew out information to someone too lazy to do their own research and/or simple basic reading on the subject, and especially if there are excellent sources out there readily available (i.e. some good reference books on the subject).

 

At the same time, I also feel that why should we have to re-invent the wheel each time someone new comes along. Sharing information is one of the major ways that this esoteric hobby (reenactment/living history) is going to grow. Also, not all of us are necessarily blessed with complete access to archives, museums, and the like due to location or other circumstances. Why make things difficult when they don't have to be?

 

There is no perfect answer to this issue. It seems that more and more with the advent of the internet, Wikipedia, et al., people do not want to put in the basic investment of time reading up on the subject. They simply expect it all to be pre-digested, ready-to-go. This is inexcusable, especially if a period has a lot of literature readily available. In regard to the First World War, we are beginning to see this a lot with the Centennial coming on; often I've seen vague general questions on forums or facebook such as "what equipment did the German infantryman carry"? That particular question went unanswered even though there were many in the group who could have answered it. The obvious answer was "Go read a fucking book" but people were too polite to actually say it, which was probably for the best.

 

So there it is. The moral of story, I suppose, would be do your basic research first before hitting people up with questions.

 

Horrido!

 

 



Research, Research, Research...

One of the basic foundation points of the living history/reenactment game is the need to document (i.e., prove up) that a particular item, typically a uniform, piece of equipment, or weapon, existed for the specific period being recreated. Sometimes this can be incredibly difficult to do and especially if there are no reliable (or any) reference sources. 

 

Unfortunately, at that point you have no choice but to try and determine for yourself through your own research. This can be daunting task, especially if it involves an obscure period and especially if it involves a foreign language of some type. What to do?

 

Here were some options: 

1. Museums
2. Online research, preferable in the language of what you are researching (eg., German for researching the German Army).; often there's a lot of information out there but it's difficult to access because of the language barrier.
3. Old pictures
4. Inverviewing surviving members of the unit or oiganization.
5. Examining offical records (from the horse's mouth, so to say).
6. Consult experts
7. Private collections

In the case of the 2 Chevauleger, Option 3 was out (we were late by some 20 years, unfortunately) while Option 1 was out due to expense (I didn't have the money to hop a plane to Germany).

However, I lucked out in that there were several excellent references that unfortunately were in German but a Google Translate and several dictionaries allowed me to make some fairly crude translations. Also, thanks to the glories of the internet, I was able to verify my translations with native speakers who were also interested in the same subject matter; I was very lucky in the that regard. To supplement this were a number of books with many photographs of the German Army and the Chevauleger in particular so I was able to identify items and then verify them against my other references.

This was not an easy process and to honest, it necessitated me investing over $500 in the relevant reference books- needless to say, it took awhile (anything published in Europe is going to cost you major $$$$, it's a fact of life). Option 6, private collections were also a major help in that I was actually able to look at many artifacts "in the flesh". It's one thing to look at an artifact in a picture but actually being to physically handle it can answer a lot of questions such as how the item appeared from every angle, its weight, etc. Sometimes it was a real eye-opener being able to actually examine an artifact- it was vastly different from what it seemed in the pictures.

However, the one caveat I will put out is in regard to consulting with experts. Often the experts are academics, either working in a university or museum setting, and tend to react with some antipathy or outright hostility when you mention that you are a reenactor/living historian- "professionals" tend to view reenactors/living historians as little more than ignorant people lacking "credentials" who want to play dress up. It's usually best to remain silent on this point unless it's absolutely critical or that you know that the person won't react negatively. While this may seem a bit dishonest, it will preclude having the proverbial door slammed in your face. The other thing is, you have to approach it from the angle of "could you help me verify some aspects of XYZ" instead of "Tell me all about XYZ" (which you shouldn't be doing anyway but it happens all the time).

I can speak from personal experience in regard to the above. At one point I was researching Spanish uniforms of the Napoleonic Era with an eye towards recreating a uniform from a particular regiment. Unfortuantely, there wasn't much out there reference, either in English or Spanish, so it was very difficult. Somebody put in touch with an expert (he's still publishing today) who completely misunderstood my questions even though I was careful to couch them in terms of "could you point me in the right direction please". He assumed that I wanted him to simply tell me everything (yeah, that would have been nice but that's not what I was after) and basically told me to fuck off, in so many words- "I'm a busy professional historian and I don't have time for this, etc.". What a jerk- needless to say, I'll be sure to never buy any books authored by him. 

So in the end, I've been able to learn quite a bit about the 2 Chevauleger and fortunately, the people I have interacted with have been a lot more forthcoming. It's a constant process and I have had to change my opinion on many things as I learned more. The hunt for information continues....

Horrido!